Incidence of lingual nerve damage following surgical extraction of mandibular third molars with lingual flap retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:12
作者
Lee, Joshua [1 ,2 ]
Feng, Boxi [1 ,2 ]
Park, Joon Soo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Foo, Magdalen [4 ]
Kruger, Estie [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Sch Allied Hlth, Crawley, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Int Res Collaborat Oral Hlth & Equ, Crawley, Australia
[3] Victoria Univ, Inst Sustainable Ind & Liveable Cities, Melbourne, Australia
[4] Univ Western Australia, UWA Dent Sch, Nedlands, Australia
来源
PLOS ONE | 2023年 / 18卷 / 02期
关键词
SURGERY; REMOVAL; INJURY; DIFFICULTY; TEETH; RISK;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0282185
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine more recent data to determine the extent of lingual nerve injury (LNI) following the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M). A systematic search of three databases [PubMed, Web of Science and OVID] was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies on patients who underwent surgical M3M extraction using the buccal approach without lingual flap retraction (BA-), buccal approach with lingual flap retraction (BA+), and lingual split technique (LS). The outcome measures expressed in LNI count were converted to risk ratios (RR). Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review, nine were eligible for meta-analysis. Combined RR for LNI (BA+ versus BA-) was 4.80 [95% Confidence Interval:3.28-7.02; P<0.00001]. The prevalence of permanent LNI following BA-, BA+ and LS (mean%+/- SD%) was 0.18 +/- 0.38, 0.07 +/- 0.21, and 0.28 +/- 0.48 respectively. This study concluded that there was an increased risk of temporary LNI following M3M surgical extractions using BA+ and LS. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a significant advantage of BA+ or LS in reducing permanent LNI risk. Operators should use lingual retraction with caution due to the increased temporary LNI risk.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]  
Akadiri O A, 2009, Niger J Med, V18, P402
[2]   Lingual nerve damage after mandibular third molar surgery: A randomized clinical trial [J].
Amorim, AC ;
Vasconcelos, BCD ;
Silva, EDO ;
da Silva, LCF .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2005, 63 (10) :1443-1446
[3]   Cost effectiveness modelling of a 'watchful monitoring strategy' for impacted third molars vs prophylactic removal under GA: an Australian perspective [J].
Anjrini, A. A. ;
Kruger, E. ;
Tennant, M. .
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 2015, 219 (01) :19-23
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Prescrire Int, V19, P28
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, B ASTRAKHAN STATE TE, V2, P137, DOI DOI 10.4103/0975-5950.94467
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2014, J OXFORD CTR BUDDHIS, V6, P9
[7]   Factors Influencing Lingual Nerve Paraesthesia Following Third Molar Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study [J].
Charan Babu H.S. ;
Reddy P.B. ;
Pattathan R.K.B. ;
Desai R. ;
Shubha A.B. .
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2013, 12 (2) :168-172
[8]   Retrospective Review of Microsurgical Repair of 222 Lingual Nerve Injuries [J].
Bagheri, Shahrokh C. ;
Meyer, Roger A. ;
Khan, Husain Ali ;
Kuhmichel, Amy ;
Steed, Martin B. .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2010, 68 (04) :715-723
[9]  
Bataineh AB, 2001, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V59, P1012, DOI 10.1053/joms.2001.25827
[10]   The effect of modified surgical flap design for removal of lower third molars on lingual nerve injury [J].
Bataineh, Anwar B. ;
Batarseh, Ra'ad A. .
CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 21 (06) :2091-2099